Cities move to ban dollar stores, blaming them for residents’ poor diets
city-journal.org
city-journal.org
Would you live a slightly less comfortable life to see other people eat healthy? Food is expensive, but I'm sure there's fat in your budget.
I agree banning dollar food stores is elitist, but it's also incredibly myopic by those in power to not also address the root cause which is you have a segment of the population that can't afford good food and has to consume food that exposes them to a greater set of negative health consequences.
Raising minimum wages, and progressive taxation would go along way to fix a lot of this. \_(:|)_/
AOC’s previous employer The Coffee Shop which was a major diner in NYC had to shut down last year because they couldn’t afford a $2 raise in the minimum wage.
These people don’t exist. Nutritionally complete diets that are very cheap include parties and milk, beans and rice, peanut butter and bread. If you add vitamin supplements or practically any meat that isn’t totally lean or any fruits or vegetables you will be perfectly healthy.
Food is cheap enough that in Mexico the problem is obesity, not malnutrition. The US is a lot richer than Mexico.
If US dollar stores are anything like UK pound stores, they are vastly more expensive for food than the discount supermarkets -- Aldi, Lidl, Iceland and similar. They're OK to great value for many non-food things, like a cheap spare pair of reading glasses, notebook, pencils or USB cable etc. If there's a pound store it's fairly safe bet one of the above three supermarkets will have an outlet not too far away too.
Nearly all the food they sell is a custom, pound store only size, and the price per gram or litre is pathetic for anyone lacking funds. They trade on appearing to offer price advantage, perhaps 10p or 20p in the pound cheaper than the supermarket, by cutting 25 or 35% of the product. If you aren't comparing price/unit you're basically getting scammed by poundstores on all food and drink. Of course they appeal most to the section of society most uncomfortable with maths by seeming cheap, even if the truth is on the small print of the shelf label.
They positively drip with unhealthy only options. Miles of chocolate, cereal, milk shake, soft drinks, tinned beans. No veg, no rice, no pasta, pulses, low sugar soft drinks, milk itself.
Dollar Stores are often predatory for food. Regular grocery stores already operate on thin margins. Dollar stores are preying on those trying to save money by being closer and easier to get to. All while deceiving poor people on the true cost of their food.
All things equal Dollar Stores would be fine, but they pull the oxygen out of the market for proper low margin grocery stores.
It is elitist to force others to do so.
Researchers don't know if even one of those causal links is real, much less all of them.
Anyway, my comment was in response to disdain for experts in favor of parents. That sort of anti-intellectual mindset can hit the road.
That sneering disdain for the self-determination of "anti-intellectuals" has led to much human suffering. Rule of experts does not scale. And academia does not necessarily produce superior expertise. Indeed, the endemic, institutional corruption often produces the opposite. Rationalia would be no paradise.
Second of all, this seems like a question of semantics. I don't know what exactly you mean by elitism, but if you see this as elitist then I find it acceptably elitist for me.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
You call it a personal attack--I call it a logical observation: one who advocates authoritarianism is a tyrant. Of course, authoritarian tyrants don't like to be called so. "Hurtful" and "problematic" opinions must be shamed.
HN ought to be concerned with the proliferation of authoritarianism rather than calling it out. Oppression flourishes where honest criticism is not allowed. "Democracy dies in darkness," right?
I think banning usurious interest rates can be elitist. But a lot of upper middle class politicians don't understand how expensive it can be to not have money. And getting hit with overdraft fees, having your electricity shut off, or not being able to make it to work because your car broke down can all be very expensive and make the usurious interest rates look cheap.
I don't see the connection but restricting medicine but I do think that non addictive medication is overly restricted.
Smoking and gambling(and drinking) are specific vices and restricting them isn't elitist but banning pall malls would be.
I'm not against elitist policies in principle. Of there is a lot of data that a particular intervention has a strong positive effect than I'm for it. But I'm just suspicious of a bunch upper middle class politicians deciding what's best for a lower class one and legislating away their options.
Well I do, and everything you said is false in the USA.
They carry high-end family-sized canned soup for $1, which I often buy.
They carry pasta ingredients for $1, which I buy if I'm in the mood to cook it.
I haven't seen vegetables.
AMA.
The structure chosen by the city planners years ago literally makes the big box store feasible to economically exist, and reduces the feasibility of mom and pop stores with healthier options. Besides encouraging terrible food options, this situation has generated numerous other social and health-related problems.
Take a walk in the poorest neighborhood in your region which has small-width streets, walking distance between homes and stores, stores on the sidewalk, and terrible parking options. In that neighborhood, you will find fruits and vegetables being sold by mom and pops, and far less prominence of dollar stores.
Yes, it depends on the city and even the particular neighborhood within the city but cornershops still exist, and there are still vendors selling produce from carts/trucks at relatively low cost.
What's missing from the article, however, are indoor markets. These are facilities that contain many vendors who rent out stalls/floor-space. Sort of like a farmer's market but with less yuppies. These types of arrangements have been around for since the 19th century. In Baltimore, they're city-operated. You can get everything from bok-choy to pigs feet. These kinds of markets provide farmers, bakers, or small grocery operators and opportunity to run their business without having the burden of real-estate or a leasing out a building.
Curtailing liberties like this seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The actual problem is not the substance, but the abuse of the substance. Drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much junk. We abuse because it's gratifying. If only the delayed gratification of moderation could compete on the daily.
I think the most productive thing that can be done right now is to discuss what we as a society could do to support people who are in pursuit of delayed gratification. How might we add components of immediate gratification to delayed gratification?
For instance, if you're trudging through something and the end is still out of sight, just hearing a, "you're doing a good job", can be immediately gratifying.
Also, previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20464624
This is equivalent to the food desert myth.
> The Geography of Poverty and Nutrition: Food Deserts and Food Choices Across the United States
> We study the causes of “nutritional inequality”: why the wealthy tend to eat more healthfully than the poor in the U.S. Using two event study designs exploiting entry of new supermarkets and households’ moves to healthier neighborhoods, we reject that neighborhood environments have economically meaningful effects on healthy eating. Using a structural demand model, we find that exposing low-income households to the same food availability and prices experienced by high-income households would reduce nutritional inequality by only 9%, while the remaining 91% is driven by differences in demand. In turn, these income-related demand differences are partially explained by education, nutrition knowledge, and regional preferences. These findings contrast with discussions of nutritional inequality that emphasize supply-side issues such as food deserts.
Kale and organic bananas are more expensive, but most veggies are ridiculously cheap. Meat on sale is not so bad.
Processed food is more expensive.
"“We can statistically conclude that the effect on healthy eating from opening new supermarkets was negligible at best,”
So people given a choice don't eat healthy? How is this news?
The poor are more likely to smoke as well - and that's expensive.
But the Dollar Store and Wallmart are giving vast, vast surpluses in wealth to the poor by offering them really cheap, off brand stuff that's pretty much as good as the branded stuff.
They might be contributing to the material wealth of the poor more than any other thing.
If they didn't exist we'd be thinking: 'Stuff is cheap to make, we pay so much for 'brand' - how can we get inexpensive every day items to the poor'? Well, that's called the Dollar Store.
Maybe we can spend more time teaching kids to cook basic meals in school? I don't know the answer but these do-gooders I feel are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes if you buy bulk produce and beans and rice and take the time to prepare it well you can eat healthy and save money but it's hard to make that choice when you're comparing it to something delicious looking low effort junk food.
I 'don't believe it' because it's false.
There are no actual 'food deserts', it's just a misleading term that the USDA:
"In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 23.5 million Americans live in "food deserts", meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas, and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas"
1 mile in suburban areas? This is not an 'hour on a bus'.
In rural areas people must have cars.
There is no evidence presented that this is a causal factor in any ability to access fresh food - in actual reality, science suggests quite the opposite.
There is definitely no causal evidence that 'The Dollar Store' drives poor nutritional habits. Conversely - there is very clear evidence of at least the economic value of 'The Dollar Store' - and if you closed them, you'd cause an uproar and make poor people's lives even more difficult.
Ironically - only a group of completely out of touch 'privileged' people would even consider shutting down dollar stores. If you asked poor people the answer would be 'absolutely not' and they would be materially much worse off.
If they really want to do some economic and behavioural science, they can open up fruit & veg markets in these supposed 'deserts' and see what happens. What will happen is that they won't generate enough business to survive, unfortunately. Which would imply there's a host of other factors at play:
"Using a structural demand model, we find that exposing low-income households to the same food availability and prices experienced by high-income households would reduce nutritional inequality by only 9%, while the remaining 91% is driven by differences in demand. In turn, these income-related demand differences are partially explained by education, nutrition knowledge, and regional preferences. These findings contrast with discussions of nutritional inequality that emphasize supply-side issues such as food deserts." [1]
Healthy food does not generally cost more than unhealthy food [2], the issue of 'Food Deserts' is only marginally relevant and the widespread availability of 'Dollar Stores' is not relevant at all to nutrition.
[1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/12/po...
[2] https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e004277.full?sid=820d6e...
Beans and rice and lentils are cheap: But you have to have the cooking utensils and time to cook them. It will help greatly if you have storage containers and freezer space. Hopefully your electric/gas aren't turned off in the meantime.
Discount meats aren't too bad, but you have to be able to shop on the days they are discounted. Plus, as above, you must have adequate refrigeration and cooking stuff - and hopefully you are making soup. You are also completely neglecting that making these things taste of anything besides, well, meat is expensive. Spices aren't cheap. The cheapest place to buy spices is, well, at dollar stores (in general).
This advice is like telling folks to buy in bulk - but it doesn't matter if the 10-pack is cheaper if you only have the money for the 2-pack and don't have the means to save up or take from other things.
If we want folks to eat better, we should really give people the money and time to do so. Stronger safety nets and better public transportation and better workplace scheduling laws, for instance. Better supporting housing. Schools the can't pay for basic maintenance or have enough computers for students can't very well install kitchens to teach kids how to cook. To be fair, though, I'm over 40 and had "cooking lessons" where we learned how to set a table, made maybe one meal a week, and cooked as a group. We were 12 or 13. I was already cooking at the time, so it wasn't helpful. My sister failed one for changing a recipe slightly: It was cinnamon toast. These classes aren't really all they are cracked up to be. Plus, if you are in a poor area, you can't really give homework without providing food and making sure folks have access to cooking stuff.
With a few exceptions, I don't agree. The cheapest place to buy spices is an Asian supermarket or online, where you will easily find bags/tubs 10x bigger than those you'll find in a dollar store or supermarket, but for the same price or even cheaper.
And once you've bought them, they last a long time (sometimes years!), because you're only using small quantities at a time.
> Beans and rice and lentils are cheap: But you have to have the cooking utensils and time to cook them
I mean, if you're not buying cold, ready to eat food, of course you need some way of cooking; I'm not really sure what your point is here.
Regarding cooking time, rice takes 10-15 minutes on a stove, depending on how you cook it. Tinned beans are cheap and already cooked - you can actually make a cracking bean chilli for practically nothing.
As far as online goes: This does require you have access to a few things: Minimally, internet and online payment forms. I personally gave up hot water for internet at one time because it meant I was able to have some entertainment - but I know not everyone does this. (Handwashing clothing was interesting). Payment is becoming slightly more common since more employers force folks to have cards. There is also waiting time and shipping costs since I couldn't usually afford enough to have free shipping.
Yes, sure, you want some cooking method. Unfortunately, one of the downsides to poverty is having unstable utilities since you don't always have money to pay them. Sometimes, you have inadequate cooking devices. You can eat that can of beans, but you might be warming it up in the can. You might not have a stove at all, just a microwave. You might have a hot plate that doesn't have the strength of a stove burner, so all of your food takes longer because it takes too long for water to boil - or that might because your house is 55 degrees inside. Hopefully, you don't work two part time jobs. Poverty is insidious, and unfortunately, you haven't set your boundaries low enough to account for many people's situation. The point that you talk about is a step up - I'm still happy I can take advantage of some of the things.
If cities truly cared about their residents'poor diets, they would ban the foods these people are buying ( soda, junk food, microwavable garbage, etc ).
Once the dollar stores close, then their customers would have to buy their junk food at a supermarket.
Also, I'd suspect that Costco, Walmart and large supermarket chains lead far more to poor diets and especially obesity than dollar stores.
Covert gentrification maneuver. None of these city-libs give an actual damn about minorities and poors.
But there's an obvious way to resolve this debate! Run these laws as A/B trials across demographically similar neighborhoods. Track people's health outcomes over the course of the experiment. If the laws seem to be working in making people healthier and happier, keep them. And if they don't, just drop the law.
We're drowning in data! There's no need to go back to the world of Socrates/Plato to try and figure everything out via thought experiments in one's own head!
When something is the last resort, like dollar store food, taking it away doesn't help anyone.
McDonalds basically already did that themselves. They left it up to the franchise owners and guess what? Every one I've seen have removed everything.
Taco Bell on the other hand...
Another common oversight is that cooking food takes time, Refrigeration costs money, etc, etc
For example a roast chicken dinner with rice and vegetables that serves ~4 can be had for ~$10 - which is pretty healthy and seems very cost effective.
But you need to assume a. You’re feeding ~4 and not one, you have a home with an oven (and not just say a microwave), you have the time to go shopping, an hour of time to cook (maybe only 15min of active time), and the basic home economics skills to execute on this.
Is there any real point to zoning other than coddling residential purchaser future land values and de-risking their investment?
Everyone knows eating healthy and exercise is good for you. Yet few people do it, to include the middle and upper classes.
Eating healthy is quite expensive - either in money or time/equipment.
It's not exactly a coincidence that poor students have a rep for Ramen noodles.
Not journalism. Not an opinion piece. An ad.